which portrait lens for 1.3x crop?

[artyboy]

trying to make a decision on which prime lens to get for portraiture work on a 1.3x crop camera - mainly for full-body or 3/4 body shots. the 85mm F/1.8 (the L version is out of my league) was recommended most but am also considering the 50mm F/1.4 and 100mm F/2. for shooting portraits outdoors (in parks, gardens, scenic places), which one would you guys recommend? the 135 F/2L seemed attractive too - a reasonably priced L - but too bad its a little longish on a 1.3x crop...

[ArcticFox]

I think it will be 100mm f/2. If you are interested in 50mm, the f/1.2 version is

[Yatlapball]

Depends on what is your comfortable working distance lor... Since you're talking about outdoors, even a 135/2 is usable.

50/1.4 is also an ok choice... cheaper, much lighter, and also very very sharp once stopped down.

[frederickykfoo]

Using a 1.3x crop camera to take outdoor full-body or 3/4 body shoot, a EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM would be a better choice.
EF 135mm f/2L USM is okay for only half body or head shots. But on a 1.6x crop camera to take outdoor full-body or 3/4 body, EF 135mm f/2L USM is just right.

[artyboy]

thanks guys. the 50 F/1.2, like the 85 F/1.2, is out of my league.
the 135mm F/2L is the only lens (among the 50/85/100) which can use the EF 1.4X TC, which makes it a 245mm F/2.8 indoor sports/stage photography lens. but 135mm on a 1.3x crop makes it a 175mm portrait lens. at that shooting distance, public places with heavy human traffic may pose a problem. but its triple-purpose use (portraits/low-light staged events/indoor sports) seems rather attractive, albeit having to accept longer shooting distances when shooting portraits. that L designation is also very enticing. or should i just stick to a sole portrait role lens?

[artyboy]

Originally Posted by frederickykfoo Using a 1.3x crop camera to take outdoor full-body or 3/4 body shoot, a EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM would be a better choice. EF 135mm f/2L USM is okay for only half body or head shots. But on a 1.6x crop camera to take outdoor full-body or 3/4 body, EF 135mm f/2L USM is just right.

i thot a shorter FL would be required if taking fuller body portraits?

[flipfreak]

when i use the 135 on my camera for full lengths, i need a walkie talkie or a runner to instruct the model. if u using on your 1d mk iii, u probably can use 2 paper cups join with a string.

i think the 85 will be more ideal if u wanna shoot full length shots.

[Gunbucker]

Originally Posted by artyboy trying to make a decision on which prime lens to get for portraiture work on a 1.3x crop camera - mainly for full-body or 3/4 body shots. the 85mm F/1.8 (the L version is out of my league) was recommended most but am also considering the 50mm F/1.4 and 100mm F/2. for shooting portraits outdoors (in parks, gardens, scenic places), which one would you guys recommend? the 135 F/2L seemed attractive too - a reasonably priced L - but too bad its a little longish on a 1.3x crop...

For full-body and/or 3/4 body shots, I'd recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8. If you're set on a prime, then the 50mm f/1.4 does it extremely well too.

[artyboy]

Originally Posted by flipfreak when i use the 135 on my camera for full lengths, i need a walkie talkie or a runner to instruct the model. if u using on your 1d mk iii, u probably can use 2 paper cups join with a string. i think the 85 will be more ideal if u wanna shoot full length shots.

well said
thats what i meant when i said "public places with heavy human traffic will pose a concern" - there is a big gap there between lens & subject. trying to kill 3 birds with 1 stone will show its limitations... seems like the 85 F/1.8 is still the most well recommended. its just a pity that for the 1.3x crop, there is a missing portrait lens choice between 50mm (65mm @ 1.3x) & 85mm (110mm @ 1.3x).

[artyboy]

Originally Posted by Gunbucker For full-body and/or 3/4 body shots, I'd recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8. If you're set on a prime, then the 50mm f/1.4 does it extremely well too.

i've excluded zooms as i want a very large aperture for both portraiture & low-light work. i've considered the 50mm too but at 65mm on a 1.3x crop, its neither here nor there. the 1.3x crop seems to be the pariah among Canon's 3 formats - missing portrait FL between 65mm & 85mm and the total lack of a UWA zoom choice!

[flipfreak]

Originally Posted by artyboy well said thats what i meant when i said "public places with heavy human traffic will pose a concern" - there is a big gap there between lens & subject. trying to kill 3 birds with 1 stone will show its limitations... seems like the 85 F/1.8 is still the most well recommended. its just a pity that for the 1.3x crop, there is a missing portrait lens choice between 50mm (65mm @ 1.3x) & 85mm (110mm @ 1.3x).

im considering upgrading to the 1.3 crop end of the year unless canon plans to phase out the aps-h. so for me, i think i will stick with the 50 or 85 for full length shots. the 135 will be good for those half body ones. the bokeh is very creamy. another consideration can be the 35L which will be the next lens i get.

[Yatlapball]

Don't worry too much about numbers. Goto a shop, pick up a 50, mount it on, and look at the working distance you have for a full-length shot. If you're comfortable with it, go ahead and get it.

[artyboy]

thanks guys for all yr insightful inputs. trying to squeeze a prime for multiple uses seems to be a futile cost-saving exercise. im aware that the ideal portraiture FL lies somewhere between 80mm and 100mm (less distortion/compression/subject distance not to mention too much skin scrutiny) so am looking for something along that FL. looks like the 85mm comes closest then. altho the 100mm F/2 do double-up as a longer candid lens too. now im opening another can of worms! but i don't understand how come the EF 1.4X TC does not support non-L primes?!

[flipfreak]

Originally Posted by artyboy thanks guys for all yr insightful inputs. trying to squeeze a prime for multiple uses seems to be a futile cost-saving exercise. im aware that the ideal portraiture FL lies somewhere between 80mm and 100mm (less distortion/compression/subject distance not to mention too much skin scrutiny) so am looking for something along that FL. looks like the 85mm comes closest then. altho the 100mm F/2 do double-up as a longer candid lens too. now im opening another can of worms! but i don't understand how come the EF 1.4X TC does not support non-L primes?!

i think its because the telephotos are all L lenses. the longest non L prime is only the 100mm.

[Yatlapball]

I think it supports the shortest telephoto is the 135/2L and well... everything after that is an L no? heh.

[artyboy]

yup, you're right.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWor...xExtender.html

[dreamtheatre]

If doing a lot of close up portratiures, better choose something more than 50mm because there is still slight disttortion at 50mm.

Choose from the focal length above this.

If speed is not your priority, the 105mm f/2.8 is nice. Long enough to give nice shallow dof, yet not too long for hand held.

my 2 cents.

DT

[artyboy]

do you mean the 100 F/2.8 Macro or the 100 F/2?
i've narrowed down to either the 85 F/1.8 or the 100 F/2. the former gives me more room to do full/3/4 portraits and a wee bit faster max aperture, whereas the latter offers slightly more compression with its wee bit longer FL. both share the same build/performance so its now down to preference in FL.

[calebk]

I would go with the 85 f/1.8 as it provides the balance of working distance and compression. Of course, it really depends on how comfortable you are with the working distance.

[artyboy]

thanks. that seem to be the most recommended option. its slightly faster than the 100 F/2 and don't have to move too far back to take in full body portraits too. heard that the hood really sucks, how much is it anyway?